br0wnr1c3
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
a person may reasonably make the choice that they don't need the Pro Max and buy the regular 17.
Now, when the options are: - iPhone 17 ($23/month) - iPhone 17 Pro Max ($35/month)
$12/month extra doesn't seem too bad, except the fact that after 24 months you can't afford to keep the phone and are effectively forced to upgrade to a new iPhone.
I agree that more options are generally better for consumers, but these types of leasing programs are predatory and come at a time when everything is becoming a subscription.
I think it would be nice if we could run unsigned apps on iOS (in the US), but booting your own OS on an iPhone is a whole different story
I have WhatsApp to talk to some family and I recently disabled allowing all contacts in iOS 18. WhatsApp now has a persistent notification at the top of messages to "Allow All Contacts".
If Apple allows users to choose whether or not to give Meta access, and users choose "no", Meta can lock them out of the service entirely (e.g., "you can't use this Meta Quest headset without allowing access to your messages").
That being said, Apple is definitely fighting for its own interests here as well. It would obviously benefit them to sell their own watches, headsets, earbuds, etc.
For both search and ads, user data is what improves the quality and revenue earned. Microsoft, with its small percentage of search queries overall, doesn't have that data and could never get as good as Google in those markets.
In some hypothetical universe where the Watch and iPad were from distinct companies, they might have to force interoperability with other products like the Pixel or Galaxy Watch to make the iPhone a compelling product.
It's not reasonable to expect the author to explain _every_ underlying technology involved since that was likely not the scope of the post.
jk, this is an incredibly fun and whimsical way to use AI